Re: SCAN address

> First, RDBMS based http and OEM will not work without SCAN address on a> RAC db. Second, with the requirement to put SCAN into DNS, DBA can no> longer install RAC without any help, the person who maintains the DNS> server, usually not DBA, will need to configure it.> > I am not aware that anybody was requesting SCAN address, it's a> convenience, an endpoint for programmers to tie their services to, not> something that would help the user. Making a mess of the installation> and and making the SCAN address mandatory is infuriating, especially> when having in mind that this is done so it's safer to use cheap> Elbonian programmers. That is the reason for adding an additional level> of complexity to otherwise already convoluted, buggy and complex RAC> installation. In 10g, RAC installation became a form of black art. In> 11g Oracle Corp. added more complexity to already convoluted and complex> environment, with even less real documentation. The real question is> whether this complexity has paid off? What did RAC 10g and RAC 11g> provide that RAC 9i couldn't have provided? The answer is ASM. The real> purpose of ASM is to block the competition. Competitors can and will use> OCFS but competitors cannot use ASM. Thus the complexity. Now, we got> SCAN address requirement, which is infuriating. I didn't even mention> the idiotic multicast flop, which belongs to the same category.

I tried redirecting it with DBMS_XDB.SETLISTENERENDPOINT to VIP hostname,
but to no avail. It still didn't register with the listener. My
conclusion is that SCAN is being rammed down our throats. I will hack
around it.